• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Pelham Lodge

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Clifton Lane, Ruddington, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG11 6AB (0115) 921 3272

Provided and run by:
Voyage 1 Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

21 June 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 21 June 2016. The inspection was unannounced. Pelham Lodge provides accommodation for up to nine people who have a learning disability. There were six people living at the service on the day of our visit.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risks in relation to people’s care and support were not always assessed or planned for appropriately. Risks in relation to the external environment were not managed appropriately and the service was not clean and hygienic in all areas.

There were not always sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment practices were not always followed.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns and there were systems and processes in place to protect people from abuse. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. People were supported to eat and drink enough and had their healthcare needs met.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were not always respected and applications were not always made where it was likely that people were being deprived of their liberty. However, people were involved in making decisions about their care and support and were supported to make day to day decisions.

People’s diverse needs were not planned for. People were not always treated with dignity and their right to privacy was not always respected. People’s communication methods were not consistently recognised or acted upon appropriately by staff.

People were supported by staff who were provided with training and supervision.

People did not always receive consistent support as support plans contained out of date information and some support plans had information missing. Staff did not always have knowledge of people’s preferences. However, people were supported to have a social life and to follow their interests.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. However they were not always effective in identifying areas for improvement.

The management team were open and approachable. People were supported to raise issues, concerns and complaints and felt assured that these would be dealt with appropriately. People were given the opportunity to get involved in giving their views on how the service was run.